Energy Conservation Behavior of Thai University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An estimated 1.2 billion people, or 16% of the global population, did not have access to electricity in 2015. Therefore, access and the conservation of energy have become critical issues in a country’s quest for economic prowess and sustainability. This research, therefore, aimed to study the energy-conservation behavior of university students, and compare their energy-saving behavior categorized by gender and university group. The sample of 900 undergraduate students came from 15 Thai public universities under the Office of the Higher Education Commission [OHEC] in the 2013 academic year. The sample was randomly selected using a multi-stage sampling method. The instrument used to collect data in this research was a 5-level rating-scale questionnaire with reliability which was between 0.86-0.94. Data were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, t-test for independent sample and one-way ANOVA. The findings revealed that the students exhibited energy-conservation behavior in a family context at a high level, while energy-conservation behavior for themselves, and for the public was at a moderate level. Male and female students had different energy-conservation behaviors, and students under different university groups had distinct energy-conservation behaviors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".